If they were talking about pure old-fashioned creationism, I'd tend to agree.

But what disturbs me about this whole case is labelling all of "ID" in it's many variants as religious. I think that sets bad precedent and is too wide of a ruling.

I think all but the most wild-eyed religious folks would agree that evolution is doggone near a fact and recent work in explaining possible quantum and multiverse influences are fascinating.

OTOH, when it comes to the origin of life and the origin of the universe, both religion and science are akin to a "Shazaam! It happened!" interpretations.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth..." is not all that different from "...in an instant, 10^100 grams of protomatter blasted out of nothingness".

As to life, did it start here? Did it come here, as prebiotic and biotic panspermia theories suppose?

I worry that this ruling could stifle creative approaches to these questions.

>Perhaps a sign that the religious right doesn't have as tight a hold as some people are charging:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/04/evolution.showdown.ap/index.html